Matching Clubs - What do way do you prefer?

[bNeill]

For all of you clubmakers (or not), which type of matching do you do in your irons. I've experimented with couple types but have gone back to plain swing weighting even though there are probably more technically sound methods. I'm just wondering what types of matching you use (few types of moi) and and other adjustments you have found beneficial (wooden dowel etc.). Thanks.

[BC MIST]

For all of you clubmakers (or not), which type of matching do you do in your irons. I've experimented with couple types but have gone back to plain swing weighting even though there are probably more technically sound methods. I'm just wondering what types of matching you use (few types of moi) and and other adjustments you have found beneficial (wooden dowel etc.). Thanks.

MOI matched and Single Frequency.

Will soon be assembling a set by altering the balance point in a particular way for a particular reason, but still single frequency.

[bNeill]

Single Frequency? What way did you decide upon a frequency? What benefit does this play in the longer irons, assuming the frequency is chosen from a mid/short iron?

[BC MIST]

Single Frequency? What way did you decide upon a frequency? What benefit does this play in the longer irons, assuming the frequency is chosen from a mid/short iron?

My original frequency was determined by the testing done with Eric Cook at Swing Sync several years ago. When assembling my own clubs I merely converted the frequency on his length clamp to my 5" one.

I am sure that there are good reasons but I never understood why the traditional sloped set, that is each succeeding shorter club is app. 4 cpm's stiffer than the previous, would be more ideal. Some call these "frequency matched"clubs when in fact, they are frequency mismatched because the set could a difference in frequency between 20 and 30 cpm's from longest iron to shortest.

The original idea was to have the shaft straight at separation and so a frequency had to be chosen to achieve this based on how the golfer swung. A club too flexible would see the club head ahead of the ball and one too stiff would see it straighten too soon and perhaps rebound after that. It is incorrect to assume that the frequency chosen is based on "mid/short iron." Why would you consider this? The traditional mindset is that you need more flexible long irons and stiffer short irons. Why?

My perceived effort in swinging ANY iron is the same. Why then would I have shafts whose but frequencies are different? IMO, the frequencies should match my consistent effort. Furthermore, if I adjust the balance points, after frequency matching, I can also achieve sameness of feel, further matching the clubs. The swing weights then, would all be different, because swing feel is what counts. Waggle feel (SW) means nothing.

[Chieflongtee]

? Furthermore, if I adjust the balance points, .

Match them exactly or within 1% of one another.

See formula

[goto10]

The last 2 sets I have built for myself have been frequency 'matched' to a steeper than MFR intended slope (I like soft long irons and stiff scoring clubs) and psuedo-MOI matched via ascending swingweight (I went 8.5-ish G weight spread). This means I end up tip trimming the short irons progressively more than the long irons because of the weight and my need for a steeper slope.

I always use prosoft inserts.

[bNeill]

The inserts are strickly for dampening vibrations right? Or do they have any other benefits?

[bNeill]

It's funny because I generally make a bit of a bigger swing (longer arc) in my longer irons, which will generate more speed. In a standard set, why are shorter irons firmer, while the speed at impact is progressively slower?

My original frequency was determined by the testing done with Eric Cook at Swing Sync several years ago. When assembling my own clubs I merely converted the frequency on his length clamp to my 5" one.

I am sure that there are good reasons but I never understood why the traditional sloped set, that is each succeeding shorter club is app. 4 cpm's stiffer than the previous, would be more ideal. Some call these "frequency matched"clubs when in fact, they are frequency mismatched because the set could a difference in frequency between 20 and 30 cpm's from longest iron to shortest.

The original idea was to have the shaft straight at separation and so a frequency had to be chosen to achieve this based on how the golfer swung. A club too flexible would see the club head ahead of the ball and one too stiff would see it straighten too soon and perhaps rebound after that. It is incorrect to assume that the frequency chosen is based on "mid/short iron." Why would you consider this? The traditional mindset is that you need more flexible long irons and stiffer short irons. Why?

My perceived effort in swinging ANY iron is the same. Why then would I have shafts whose but frequencies are different? IMO, the frequencies should match my consistent effort. Furthermore, if I adjust the balance points, after frequency matching, I can also achieve sameness of feel, further matching the clubs. The swing weights then, would all be different, because swing feel is what counts. Waggle feel (SW) means nothing.

[Chieflongtee]

The inserts are strickly for dampening vibrations right? Or do they have any other benefits?

Strickly for dampening vibrations. No effect on swingweight

[jvincent]

The last 2 sets I have built for myself have been frequency 'matched' to a steeper than MFR intended slope

That's interesting, I have done my last two sets with a shallower than recommended slope.

[BC MIST]

It's funny because I generally make a bit of a bigger swing (longer arc) in my longer irons, which will generate more speed. In a standard set, why are shorter irons firmer, while the speed at impact is progressively slower?

While the speed may be higher with the longer cub, is the effort/force that you put into that swing greater? I don't think that one can presume that higher SS means greater effort, with a longer club.

Your question is a good one. Tradition says stiffer short irons. But why? "Because that's the way we've always done it," some say.

[downhillslider]

Great topic. Most posters are re inforcing the theory that there is no one way to build a golf club. OEM's are you listening !! With the simple basic concept that everyone's golfswing is totally unique, it stands to reason that every golfer requires a specific set of specs to perform to there potential.

All of the methods mentioned so far are all accepted ways to build clubs, But what one will benefit you the most ?

I have tried many for myself. Was not big on the MOI,singweighting was OK, but didn't feel just right, flat lining was a bust graduated frequency was not bad though.

Over the years, I have discovered that I like soft and head heavy wedges and as the irons gets longer, I prefer a lighter feeling head. My hybrids are much longer than the coresponding irons they replace but have graphite shafts in them.My fairway woods are shorter (5- 41.25",3- 42.25" )as is my driver (44.5'') and I prefer a head feel on them not as heavy as the wedges but heavier than the rest of the set. Works for me.

Basically what I have is a set with 3 seperate flat line frequencies. Weges and irons, hybrids,woods. A combination of methods. ( I should get the patent on this )

To build something like this for a customer would require a long lasting relationship. You do not accomplish this in a two hr. fitting. Although during a fitting, one could pinpoint if a certain method of assembly would be of some benefit.

[goto10]

Oops.

[bNeill]

I restrict my follow-though much more with my short irons so I think the clubhead will be accelerating at a faster rate through impact with my long irons.

It would be interesting to observe how ball flight would change with stiffer long irons and softer short irons. I think that one reason for stiffer short irons would be to control flight, while softer shafts in long irons may aid in creating a higher launch angle.

While the speed may be higher with the longer cub, is the effort/force that you put into that swing greater? I don't think that one can presume that higher SS means greater effort, with a longer club.

Your question is a good one. Tradition says stiffer short irons. But why? "Because that's the way we've always done it," some say.

[BC MIST]

It would be interesting to observe how ball flight would change with stiffer long irons and softer short irons. I think that one reason for stiffer short irons would be to control flight, while softer shafts in long irons may aid in creating a higher launch angle.

I don't understand why it is assumed that stiffer iron shafts "would be to control flight." It should logically follow then that long irons shafts should be stiffer, too, as irons are for accuracy. If one feels that softer long shafts aid in increasing trajectory then why not just increase the loft of the head? The same swing error in a long iron as in a short iron will see much more of the mistake passed on to the ball flight because of the lower loft, not the stiffness of the shaft.

It is also presumed that stiffer shafts yield greater accuracy meaning that softer shafts would result in greater distance, which is a myth.

Supposedly, the whole idea is to select a shaft that results in the shaft being straight and club face square at separation. The flex of a shaft and specifically where the shaft is stiffer or more flexible depends on a number of swing factors, speed of transition, overall rhythm, release point, and swing speed, suggesting that finding the perfect shaft would be very challenging. However, since the #1 and #2 contributions of the shaft to the player's game are FEEL and TOTAL WEIGHT, all the other considerations are perhaps not nearly important as many profess.

Frankly, give me any stiffness with the ideal length and lie angle and you won't see any difference in accuracy or distance, but I will enjoy the FEEL of a softer flex.

[danscustom]

All my clubs are built to a Series 7 True Length Technology math model, with progressive swing weights. My 4 iron is D2 and my wedge is D5. This will emulate a MOI matched set within a decent tolerance.

I am on a softer slope for frequency than the traditional 4 or 4.33 CPM as I always found this too harsh. I'm more in the area of 3CPM in my long irons and reducing as the length increment reduces (following the TLT math model).

[Kona Golf]

For all of you clubmakers (or not), which type of matching do you do in your irons. I've experimented with couple types but have gone back to plain swing weighting even though there are probably more technically sound methods. I'm just wondering what types of matching you use (few types of moi) and and other adjustments you have found beneficial (wooden dowel etc.). Thanks.

I prefer MOI and I too prefer a softer slope (2 cpm), but have not tried single frequency.

I use the Auditor for MOI matching.